9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore it. When the Tribunal has thought it fit to reduce the disallowance at 6% from 12.5%, the Tribunal had before it the facts which were duly analysed by it. No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal in the present appeal by this court. See PANKAJ K. CHOUDHARY [ 2021 (10) TMI 653 - ITAT SURAT] - No substantial questions of law can be said to have arisen. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1: Mr Rudram Trivedi Advocate With Mrs Kalpana K Raval (1046). For the Respondent : None. ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) [1] Heard learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in not considering - the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of N .K. Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT in TA No. 240 to 242 of 2003 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 769 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017, wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided that 100% of purchases from bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the Assessee, reversing the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT that restricted addition to 25%, holding that such restriction goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C of Income tax Act? the judgment of Calcutta High Court of in the case of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal (143) taxmann.com 173) involving similar issue of purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions obtained from Bhanwarlal Jain Group to the tune of Rs. 1,73,89,14,095/-. [3.3] The case of the assessee was therefore reopened and the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was completed on 15th December 2018 determining total assessed income at Rs. 1,73,90,77,458/- after making addition of Rs. 43,47,28,524/- on account of bogus purchase. [3.4] Further, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated against the assessee and the Principal CIT passed an order dated 19th March 2021 setting aside the assessment order dated 15th December 2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after examining the issue of transactions made with Bhanwarlal Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve submissions, the relevant extract from the order of the Tribunal is reproduced herein below: 17. We note that in these three appeals of the Revenue, the same issue is involved which is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the case of Pankaj Choudhary (supra). The said issue is also covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Impex [2023] 148 taxmann.com 154 (Guj) (supra) which is a binding precedent. As there is no change in facts and law so far these three appeals of Revenue are concerned, hence respectfully following the binding precedent, we dismiss these three appeals of Revenue. [6] This Court in case of Pankaj K. Choudhary (Supra) while dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above judicial pronouncements and views taken by Ld. CIT(A) AOS in a few identical cases. In a couple of identical cases, where the GP shown by the appellants is more than 5%, I have confirmed the disallowance of the impugned purchases to the extent of 5% of the impugned purchases. However in the instant case the appellant is showing measly G.P. of only 0.78% on turnover. In view of this I am of the considered opinion that disallowance of 12.5% of the impugned purchases would be reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the disallowance is restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchases for the assessment year in appeal. 5.2 The disallowance at 100% was made in the assessment order for the year under consideration to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank Diamonds the Hon'ble High Court restricted the additions to 5% of GP. We have seen that in Mayank Diamonds P Ltd (supra), the assessee had declared GP @ 1.03% on turnover of Rs 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was Rs. 1.68 Crore. However, in the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. It is settled law that under Incometax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
